Wednesday, April 30, 2008

By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg BureauHARRISBURG -- Lawyers, religious leaders and advocates for gays and lesbians faced off yesterday in one of the most contentious and highly charged Senate Appropriations Committee hearings in recent history.

At issue is a proposal to strengthen the state's ban on gay marriage with a constitutional amendment and a provision preventing other kinds of unions that are functionally equivalent to marriage.

Proponents of the measure invoked Bible passages while opponents cried discrimination and attorneys on both sides argued over whether a constitutional amendment is necessary when Pennsylvania already has a statute prohibiting same-sex marriage.

The hearing turned at times into a verbal sparring match between Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, and various advocates for the amendment who argued that homosexuality is immoral and that government should encourage relationships that involve procreation. They said same-sex unions would undermine God's plan and cause traditional marriage to become undervalued and obsolete.

Mr. Fumo railed back, calling those arguments ignorant.

"If two homosexuals are allowed to get married, is that going to affect your marriage? Your marriage is that weak you're going to get a divorce over that?" he said to Philadelphian James Horn, a father of eight who testified in favor of the constitutional amendment.

Mr. Horn had said that "changing the meaning of marriage will further discourage men and women from marrying. ... If we leave the door open to change the meaning of marriage and lessen the special place a husband and wife hold in our society, we are saying it is even less important for men and women to be responsible to each other and their children."

The Rev. Riess Potterveld, president of Lancaster Theological Seminary, said gay people have long been subject to discrimination and recriminations and should not be subject to further prejudice and polarization that would be brought by the proposed constitutional amendment.

Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.

"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.

Sen. John Gordner, R-Columbia, said that hasn't been a widespread problem in states with similar bans.

The Marriage Protection Coalition of Greater Pittsburgh weighed in with written testimony. The amendment "will protect the traditional family from being discriminated against or displaced, due to increasing alternative marriage-like lifestyle behavior in society," wrote Sharon Capretto, president of the group.

The hearing's audience included more than 100 people, some wearing green "Protect Marriage" buttons and others carrying signs reading "Marriage Is Not Gay Crime."

The Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on the amendment next week. The issue was before the committee because of the estimated $2 million cost of advertising required as part of the constitutional amendment process, although cost was mentioned only once during the three-hour hearing.

Amending the constitution requires lawmakers' approval during two separate legislative sessions and approval by voters in a referendum.

Proponents say voters should have their say, but opponents say the constitution was put in place to protect the rights of the minority and that the proposed amendment would restrict those rights.

"The majority of people in Germany did not accept Jews. Does that make it right that they exterminated them?" Mr. Fumo asked. "If you allow the tyranny of the majority to prevail, then no one is safe."

Committee approval would send the bill to the floor for a vote by the Republican-controlled Senate. If it passes there, it is unlikely Democrats, who control the House, would give it a hearing this session, and GOP House members are focused on other issues, like tax reform, Republican Leader Sam Smith told the Pennsylvania Press Club on Monday.

Tracie Mauriello can be reached at tmauriello@post-gazette.com or 1-717-787-2141.First published on April 30, 2008 at 12:00 am

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The highest court of the U.S. Presbyterian Church has lifted a censure placed on a retired minister for presiding over two same-sex unions, the church announced on Tuesday.

The ruling said the Rev. Jane Adams Spahr, an activist for gay and lesbian causes who lives in San Rafael, California, performed "ceremonies" and not actual marriages in two instances in 2004 and 2005. Both cases involved lesbian couples.

"A same-sex ceremony is not and cannot be a marriage" under the laws of the 2.3 million member church, said the ruling from the Permanent Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church

U.S.A.

Spahr had been found guilty of performing gay marriages and rebuked "for doing that which by definition cannot be done," the panel said.

"One cannot characterize same sex ceremonies as marriages for the purpose of disciplining a minister ... and at the same time declare that such ceremonies are not marriages for legal or ecclesiastical purposes," it said.

Spahr served a "validated ministry charged with caring for members of the gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender community and reported regularly to her presbytery about the same sex unions and 'weddings' she performed," the commission added. "These services were not described as marriages in her reports ..."

Spahr, 65, in 1992 became the first openly lesbian Presbyterian minister to be appointed a local church pastor, and she went on to preside over hundreds of gay unions.

A local governing body overseeing her ministry initially said she did not commit an offense, but in August, 2007, a regional judicial group reversed that and censured her.

Her appeal to the top commission of the Kentucky-based church resulted in Tuesday's final ruling.

The church is the largest Presbyterian group in the United States. A number of other churches are struggling with the role of gays and how to treat same-sex unions.

The ruling said the church is open to all and "while drawing a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual practice, and maintaining behavior standards for ordained office that further limit sexual practice, the church has attempted to minister to the (gay) community through the efforts of ministers like Spahr.

"The tension the church has created between sexual orientation and sexual practice has led to turmoil and dissension that will likely continue for some time," it added.

About five dozen people stood in a steady rain outside the Oyster Bay clerk's office Monday, holding signs and chanting "Let Dan and Lee Marry" as an East Hills gay couple applied for a marriage license.

The couple, Dan Pinello, 58, and Lee Nissensohn, 50, walked in at 3:30 p.m. and when they walked out nearly two hours later, they each had a ticket for trespassing.

The two men had been prepared to be arrested to make a point about the need for a law in New York that would allow same-sex marriage. But the couple relented and agreed beforehand with town officials to leave once they were ticketed.

"We are law-abiding citizens," said Pinello, a government professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "We pay our taxes. We have no other choice left."

Town Clerk Steven L. Labriola, standing next to town Supervisor John Venditto, refused to issue the license, telling the couple he was "precluded by law" from doing it.

"We're not trying to make statements here, we're trying to do our jobs," he said later.

The goal of the couple's "act of civil disobedience" -- as they called it -- was to persuade state Sen. Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset) to pressure state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick) to bring a bill that would allow same-sex marriage to the senate floor for a vote.

A Marcellino spokeswoman has said the senator supports state law, which says marriage is between a man and a woman. Bruno has said he is against the bill.

The bill, which was co-sponsored by the couple's own senator, Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), remains in the judiciary committee.

The men, who have been together for 13 years, refused to leave the building at closing time, 4:45 p.m., when three Nassau County police officers took them into a room and handed them appearance tickets.

Their supporters were mostly people who didn't know the couple. But the men had written them letters, asking for their support in lobbying their representatives.

Judith Alexanderson, who received one of the thousands of letters, said she was disappointed in Marcellino.

"The time has come -- equal rights for everyone," said Alexanderson, a retired middle school teacher from Syosset. "Times have changed. You can't be stuck in your ways."

Pinello and Nissensohn said they were touched by the show of support.

"For strangers to show so much devotion, not only to us, but to our cause, is wonderful," said Pinello.

The couple is scheduled to appear in Fourth District Court in Hempstead on June 9.

Holding the pink copy of his ticket and looking at the drenched crowd, Nissensohn, a dentist with a practice in Roslyn, said, "This shows there's a universal need to pursue this further."

Hundreds of gay and lesbian are calling on state leaders to keep moving forward just twelve weeks after a New York appellate court ruled to recognize gay marriages performed outside the state.

Advocates say allowing gay marriages to be performed in the state would not only be important for civil rights, but it could also help the local economy.

Area gay and lesbian couples finally celebrated with each other at a wedding expo at the Rochester Riverside Convention Center. They also advocated for the next step in gay rights in New York State: same-sex marriages performed in the state.

Saturday night they had the support of 60 local businesses.

"We fully believe everyone has equal rights, and we think everyone should be treated fairly,” said Rita Fullerton of Primadonna Bridals in Canandaigua.

“All this says to me is that Monroe County understands the economy is bleeding right now, and instead of sending all these couples to Canada and Massachusetts to spend thousands of dollars, we could have a lucrative situation (in New York),” said Jo Meleca-Voigt.

Jo married her wife, Christine, nearly three years ago. However, they were forced to wed in Canada - an occasion the Meleca-Voigt’s and business leaders say would have been better spent in their home state.

“It would have meant a greater convenience for my family and friends, who I wanted to invite to my wedding and just didn't feel like it or who couldn't make the trek. We had to plan to separate events which was hugely costly,” Christine Meleca-Voigt said.

“There are a lot of businesses who really are open minded to the community and not just what people consider the norm,” Fullerton said. “This is the norm. This is the world the way it is.”

So far, a marriage equality bill has yet to get past the state senate. That’s why the proceeds from the wedding expo are going toward a committee dedicated to supported political candidates who are for gay and lesbian rights.

“It's about knowing we're consenting adults and that we're taxpayers,” Jo said. “We know who we love and who we want to commit the rest of our lives to, and we should be allowed to do that.”

Monroe County is fighting the New York appellate court’s decision to recognize marriages performed out of the state.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Hoping to make a statement about the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, two East Hills men plan to walk into the Oyster Bay town clerk's office at 3:30 p.m. today with $40 and two forms of identification and apply for a marriage license.

Dan Pinello, 58, and Lee Nissensohn, 50, expect they will be denied and they will remain there until police remove them.

"We are middle-aged people; we prefer not to do this," said Pinello, a government professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "But we don't have a choice."

Town spokesman Jim Moriarty said only that, "If and when this occurs, the request will be reviewed consistent with applicable state law."

What the couple call an "act of civil disobedience" is the culmination of almost two years of lobbying to push state lawmakers to vote for marriage equality for same-sex couples.

In 2006, the couple began a letter-writing campaign, targeting thousands of Nassau County voters younger than 70 who voted in the 2004 and 2006 general elections. So far, Pinello said, they have about 1,400 supporters, some of whom said they will show up today.

Tara Keenan-Thomson, the executive director of the Nassau County chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said she also plans to be there as a neutral observer.

While residents can apply for a marriage license anywhere in the state, the couple chose Oyster Bay because it is the district of Sen. Carl Marcellino (R- Syosset) and their own state senator, Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), already supports marriage equality.

Their goal is to get constituents to pressure Marcellino, so that he will pressure State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick) to bring a same-sex marriage bill to the Senate floor for a vote. That bill would make a marriage valid regardless of the couple's sex.

"The State of New York has the position that marriage is between a man and a woman and the senator supports that position," she said.

The couple has urged supporters to stop by Marcellino's office, less than a quarter-mile from town hall, today.

Johnson co-sponsored the State Senate bill, which was referred to the judiciary committee and it has remained there since January. A similar bill passed in the Assembly last year.

"We are working in Albany to change the law so that an act of civil disobedience will not be needed in the future," said Johnson's spokesman, Rich Azzopardi.

Pinello and Nissensohn, who have been together for 13 years, said they are not giving up.

"It's troubling that you don't have the same rights as other couples only because you're the same sex," said Nissensohn, a dentist with a practice in Roslyn. "No one is asking for more rights. We just want equivalent rights."

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Young Gay Rites By BENOIT DENIZET-LEWISLAST NOVEMBER IN BOSTON, Joshua Janson, a slender and boyish 25-year-old, invited me to an impromptu gathering at the apartment he shares with Benjamin McGuire, his considerably more staid husband of the same age. It was a cozy, festive affair, complete with some 20 guests and a large sushi spread where you might have expected the chips and salsa to be.

“I beg of you — please eat a tuna roll!” Joshua barked, circulating around the spacious apartment in a blue blazer, slim-fitting corduroys and a pair of royal blue house slippers with his initials. “The fish is not going to eat itself!”

Spotting me alone by a window seat decorated with Tibetan pillows, Joshua, who by that point had a few drinks in him, grabbed my arm and led me toward a handful of young men huddled around an antique Asian “lion’s head” chair. “Are you single? Have you met the gays?” Joshua asked, depositing me among them before embarking on a halfhearted search for the couple’s dog, Bernard, who, last I saw him, was eyeing an eel roll left carelessly at dog level. (At the other end of the living room, past a marble fireplace, the straights — in this case, young associates from the Boston law firm Benjamin had recently joined — were debating the best local restaurants.)

As the night went on, the gays and the straights — fueled, I suspect, by a shared appreciation for liquor — began to mingle, and before long the party coalesced into a boisterous celebration. Joshua looked delighted. And in a rare moment of repose, he sidled up to his taller, auburn-haired mate.

“Honey,” Joshua said, “we may be married, but we still know how to have a good time, don’t we?”

Benjamin, sharply outfitted in green corduroys and an argyle sweater over a striped dress shirt, smiled. “Josh is extremely social, and he keeps us busy all the time,” he told me. “I think we may be proof that opposites do attract.”

“If it were up to him,” Joshua said, “we’d barely leave the house! We’re actually a terrific team. He calms me down, and I get him out at night. I’ll say: ‘Honey, this is what we’re doing. Now put this on.’ ”

“I think a lot of straight married couples start hibernating at home once they get married,” Benjamin said.

“And I love your parents to death,” Joshua interrupted, “but it scared me senseless to think that if anything were to happen, if you ended up in the hospital, your mother would get to make the decisions.” Joshua looked at me with a devilish grin. “I dare her to try! I’d say, ‘Woman, get away from my man!’ I’m 24, I’ve been with Ben for a long time and we’ve been married for three years. I think I’ve earned the right — the responsibility — that comes with that.”.....................................

Kitty Lambert is one of the most enthusiastic people you will ever meet. Lambert and her partner of 14 years, Cheryle Rudd, are both grandmothers who lead the group Outspoken for Equality. This Tuesday, April 29, they are going to Albany to meet with state leaders about the issue of gay marriage.

Outspoken for Equality is working on the passage of the Marriage Equality Bill in New York, not only to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions but also to allow same-sex couples to marry in the state and provide them with the same rights and privileges afforded heterosexual couples. The group emphasizes that marriage is a civil right and that governments, not religious institutions, issue marriage licenses. With marriage comes 1,324 New York State rights, benefits, and protections that are denied to LGBT families.

Currently, New York State recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. If you’re a gay couple and you marry in parts of Canada, Spain, Vermont, or Massachusetts, New York will recognize that union. This carries over into insurance and health benefits, although those benefits are taxed as income because such unions are not recognized at the federal level.

Michael James, chair of the Stonewall Democrats of Western New York, says, “We used to be attacked for being promiscuous and not being family-oriented. Now that we want the right to marry, we’re being attacked for ruining family values. I’ve been in a monogamous relationship for 31 years. My sister is on her fourth marriage.”

The group has worked with several politicians open to gay marriage. They praise Governor David Paterson for having a nonconfrontational style, and they believe the political climate is promising for equality. They also applaud politicians such as Sam Hoyt, Antoine Thompson, Byron Brown, and Mark Schroeder. Schroeder, they point out, initially signed onto DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), ostensibly for religious reasons. The group met with Schroeder and talked to him about the history of marriage in New York State. On the books, marriage by law has always been intended to protect assets, inheritance rights, and estates, and has had nothing to do with religious affiliation.

Schroeder researched the topic and came to the conclusion that the wording of marriage as a contractual bond involving property rights indeed had nothing to do with religion and has now come to support gay marriage.

“Every senator not on board will be a focus of our efforts. We want to educate not alienate them, ” says Bruce Kogan, retired from the New York State Crime Victims Board.

Politicians the group is focusing on are bipartisan. State senators such as Mary Lou Rath, Dale Volker, and George Maziarz are Republicans. However, Democrats such as Bill Stachowski have also signed onto DOMA.

Many politicians cite religion or their constituency as factors in not supporting gay rights.

When Lambert asked Maziarz why he was against gay marriage, he said, “I’m a devout Catholic,” to which Lambert retorted, “Your constituents didn’t elect you to be a good Catholic.”

“Churches have even helped us with our letter writing campaigns,” says Lambert. Pilgrim St. Luke’s, Temple Beth Zion, and Unity Church are just a few that have shown support.

“I’m a citizen of the United States, I pay my taxes, raise my children, volunteer to my community, I want to protect my family. We’re frustrated that our children are dismissed as not being in a family. We hope more folks will realize allowing gays to marry will add to the economic stability of the state,” says Lambert.

Equality and Justice Day is Tuesday, April 29. If you’d like more information or would like to join the lobby on Albany contact: OUTspokenformarriage.org/578-3782.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

This is an excellent summary of the Gay Marriage Issue click above link for detailed article.

Gay Marriage

Updated April 1, 2008

In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignited a nationwide debate over same-sex marriage when it declared the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. The ensuing battle has included fights in Congress over a federal marriage amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman; a spate of same-sex wedding ceremonies (in some cases in violation of state laws); and the passage of numerous state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. As the debate rages on, the American religious community remains deeply divided over the issue.

Special Report: The Same-Sex Marriage DebateThis report gives an overview of the gay marriage debate in America, analyzes the constitutional dimensions of the debate and looks at public opinion trends on gay marriage and civil unions.

Gay Marriage and the LawThe constitutional dimensions of the same-sex marriage debate.

A Stable MajorityAmericans continue to oppose gay marriage, but most support civil unions. Map: State Policies on Same-Sex MarriageMaps showing state laws on gay marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships. Religious Groups' Official Positions on Gay MarriageA breakdown of 17 major religious groups' views on gay marriage and the ordination of gay clergy.

Compare Candidates on Gay MarriageReligion & Politics '08 offers a comparison of each candidate's stance on gay marriage. Redefining Marriage Around the WorldThe legal definition of marriage is in flux, particularly in the developed world.

A history of same-sex marriage laws Important events are listed in red

1993Hawaii Supreme Court rules the state must show a compelling reason to ban same-sex marriage and orders a lower court to hear a case seeking the right of same-sex couples to marry. (May)

1995Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt (R) signs into law the first state Defense of Marriage statute, which stipulates that Utah does not have to recognize out-of-state marriages that violate state public policy. (March)

1996President Bill Clinton signs into law the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which upholds states' rights to ban same-sex marriages and to refuse to recognize such marriages performed elsewhere. (September)

1998Alaska Superior Court judge rules that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry but stays the decision pending appeals to the state Supreme Court. (February)

Hawaii voters approve a state constitutional amendment reserving the right to define marriage to the Legislature. (November)

1999Alaska Supreme Court rules that same-sex couples cannot seek the right to marry under the state constitution in light of the 1998 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (September)

Vermont Supreme Court rules that the state Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples. However, the court leaves it up to the Legislature to decide how to provide marriage rights and benefits to same-sex couples. (December)

2001Seven same-sex Massachusetts couples file a lawsuit after being denied marriage licenses. In Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health, the couples seek the right to marry.

2002Nevada voters give final approval to a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Voters first approved the ban in 2000, but state law requires a majority vote in two consecutive election years to amend the constitution. (November)

Massachusetts Legislature votes to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. Legislature must approve the measure again by 2006 before amendment can go to statewide vote. (March)

Arizona becomes the first state to reject at the ballot box a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and other benefits for unmarried couples. (Nov. 7)

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), in the wake of a court order, signs a bill permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, granting the same state benefits conferred on married couples. (December)

2007Michigan appeals court rules that state's ban on gay marriage prohibits state and local governments and public universities from offering health benefits to partners in same-sex relationships. (February)

SACRAMENTO - Prominent San Diego residents, including developer Doug Manchester and members of the Caster family, have played a key role in funding an effort to bring a ban on same-sex marriage before voters in November.

Opponents of same-sex marriage say that after years of trying they have finally gathered enough signatures to force a vote on the divisive and emotional issue. They plan to turn the signatures in this week.

The latest reports from the Secretary of State's office show that several members of the Caster family, including actress Christina Caster, have made generous donations to the effort.

The reports also show that the Knights of Columbus, which contributed $250,000 to the effort, provided the largest donation to the National Organization for Marriage, which is backing the ban.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, have begun their own efforts to raise money, vowing to mount a vigorous campaign to defeat the ban.

Both sides are eagerly awaiting a ruling by the state Supreme Court over whether same-sex couples have the right to marry

The sponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw same-sex marriage in California said Monday they have gathered enough signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

A coalition of religious groups called Protect Marriage collected more than 1.1 million signatures in support of the amendment, said Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage.

The initiative needs 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor's race, to make it onto the ballot.

"We have gone against tremendous odds to do this, and now the voters in California will have the chance to protect marriage," Brown said.

Supporters of the Limit on Marriage initiative plan to deliver their signed petitions to county registrars this week, ahead of the April 28 submission deadline set by the California Secretary of State's Office. The signatures must be verified before the amendment can be approved for the election.

Although gay men and lesbians cannot legally wed in California, opponents of same-sex unions want the ban written into the state Constitution. In that way, neither the Legislature nor the California Supreme Court can legalize gay marriage without approval from voters.

They were especially anxious to put the question before voters this fall because the state Supreme Court is scheduled to rule by early June on a series of lawsuits seeking to toss out California's existing one man-one woman marriage laws.

If passed by a majority of voters, the constitutional amendment would overturn a court ruling in favor of gay marriage advocates. They hope California will become the second state after Massachusetts to legalize same-sex marriage.

"We shouldn't have to be guessing. This shouldn't be something left to the court either now or in the future," Brown said. "The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."

If it qualifies for the ballot, the measure promises to be the center of a hard-fought campaign.

Protect Marriage raised more than $1.5 million in contributions to support its petition drive, money that allowed the group to hire paid signature collectors to supplement the volunteers it recruited from churches, Brown said.

A coalition of gay rights groups called Equality for All launched an aggressive counter-campaign to persuade people not to sign the qualifying petitions.

Its "Decline to Sign" volunteers approached patrons outside the shopping centers where the signature gatherers were working and asked them instead to sign pledges supporting same-sex marriage.

Representatives from the two sides have accused each other of trying to squelch free speech. There were reports of heated debates and even fisticuffs in some locations.

Dan Hawes, an organizer with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force who has spent two months on the effort to keep the initiative from qualifying, said he had never seen such a coordinated attempt to prevent a marriage amendment from making it to the ballot.

"There is a real sense of hope and possibility here because of the court ruling that is coming down in June," he said. "The fact that could be taken away in five months is really painful for people who want to marry."

Earlier this month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger upset the amendment's backers when he told a gathering of gay Republicans he thought the measure was unnecessary and that he would actively oppose it. He has twice vetoed bills seeking to make gay marriage legal.

"When Governor Schwarzenegger publicly opposed this constitutional amendment, he said the people of California are much futher along on this issue, and the governor is right. The voters have moved on," said Seth Kilbourn, political director of Equality California, the state's largest gay-rights lobbying group.

Kilbourn said the amount of money the initiative's sponsors spent and their use of paid petition circulators showed that California voters may be reluctant to write a same-sex marriage ban into the state Constitution.

"We are confident we will be able to defeat this measure, when and if it appears on the ballot," he said.

The National Organization for Marriage, headquartered in New Jersey, and the Colorado-based Focus on the Family have contributed heavily to the Protect Marriage campaign. It also has received significant backing from the Knights of Columbus.

After eight months of public hearings and legal forums, a special commission released its report on same-sex marriage. The commission did not make a recommendation about whether Vermont should legalize gay marriage, but it did conclude there is a significant difference between marriage and civil unions.

The commission heard from literally hundreds of people during eight public hearings, and one legal forum. It took all those opinions and basically boiled them down into nine findings and three recommendations.

In it's final report to the legislature, the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection finds that there is a significant difference between the rights and responsibilities granted to same-sex couples through civil unions, and heterosexual couples through civil marriage.

"The commission recommends that Vermont take seriously the difference between civil marriage and civil union," said chair of the Vt. Commission on Family Recognition & Protection, Tom Little.

While it stopped short of making a recommendation about whether the state should proceed with granting same-sex marriages, the commission does suggest there is a legal basis for it.

"Providing statutory access to marriage would be a clearer and more direct statement of full equality by the state a statement of full inclusion of its gay and lesbian residents," said Little.

Overall, the commission found that Vermonters with civil unions feel they are not being granted the full rights promised in Act 91-- the act that established civil unions.

Supporters of same-sex marriage say that is reason for the state to act on this report and move forward with gay marriage during next year's legislative session.

"What they did do, is they systematically recounted what they heard and I don't think you can systematically review the evidence and not conclude that there is no good reason to keep gay and lesbian Vermonters separate and legally inferior to our heterosexual counterparts," said Beth Robinson of the Vt. Freedom to Marry Task Force.

And while the commission found an overwhelming majority of those who testified at the public hearings support gay marriage, opponents say that is only because they boycotted the meetings.

"We're coming out with our own report, the Vermont Marriage Advisory Council, and it will be based on international and national experts and 20 years worth of research on this issue," said Stephen Cable of Vt. Renewal, Inc.

This report is now in the hands of lawmakers who must decide how to move forward with its recommendations.

The commission also found there are more questions to be studied, for example; can the state's tax structure be changed through a statute to ease the burden that civil union couples face in preparing and filing returns?

Click here to read the entire report of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection for yourself.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Gay activists in Maryland had high hopes for this legislative session. Marriage rights seemed, for the first time, within reach. But the session ended last week with only token pro-gay measures approved. Joshua Lynsen talks to the key players to find out what went wrong.

JOSHUA LYNSEN Friday, April 18, 2008

Three months ago, Marty Rouse was hopeful that Maryland lawmakers would extend new rights to same-sex couples.

Rouse, a Maryland resident who works as national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, told the Blade in January that he and his neighbors could win marriage rights, civil unions or domestic partnerships this year.

“I feel very confident that we will be successful in 2008,” he said at the time. “Well, I’ll say cautiously optimistic. I’m sorry. Cautiously optimistic that we will see some kind of relationship recognition in 2008.”

But Rouse’s hopes were dashed after efforts to grant gay Marylanders marriage rights died in committee. Bills to enact civil unions or domestic partnerships were snubbed by activists and failed to gain traction.

In the end, Maryland legislators granted same-sex couples just a few new privileges, such as hospital visitation rights, before they adjourned last week.

Rouse, who lives near Bethesda, Md., said the session’s outcome was “extremely disappointing” to him and other gay Marylanders.

“It proves that we, as a community, have a lot more work to do,” he said last week. “Politically, we’re just not there yet. That’s the reality that we face. We’re not there yet. We do not have enough political power to win what we deserve.” ..............

The fight for gay marriage in California has been a tough one during the last decade. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by 62% of the state's voters, limiting marriage to a man and a women. Its since been sent to the State's Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed Gay Marriage Bills sent to him by the California Legislature, the second as recently as last year. "He will uphold whatever the court decides," Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said after the bill's original passing.

Fearing the court's decision, the Family Research council has launched a ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage in California. "After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples," they said in a March fundraising email.

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment, "I will always be there to fight against that," he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a "waste of time" and acknowledge that the people of California are, "much further along on that issue." The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000.

There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality.

DES MOINES — A UCLA study says same-sex marriage, if allowed in Iowa, would be a boon to the state economy.

The study arrives as the Iowa Supreme Court is considering an appeal of a Polk County case that overturned the state ban on same-sex marriage.

The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law estimates that same-sex weddings and related tourism would lead to $160 million in spending over the next three years.

The total economic activity related to same-sex marriage would give the state an extra $5.3 million per year in tax revenue, the study says.

“This study demonstrates that equal marriage rights for same-sex couples are not only good for those couples, but they’re good for the state budget,” said a statement from co-author Lee Badgett, the research director of the Williams Institute.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have raised concerns that the Supreme Court case could make Iowa a tourist destination for same-sex marriages, much like Las Vegas is a destination for weddings.

Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said the economic benefits cited in the study are no reason to legalize gay marriage. He said the gains from tourism are minor compared to the losses from anti-business policies of legislative Democrats.

“The Legislature has done everything they can think of last year and this year to run business out of the state,” Wieck said.

This isn’t the first time the UCLA institute has taken a statistical look at gay couples in Iowa. In 2006, the institute said Iowa’s population of gay couples was skyrocketing, up 58 percent from 2000 to 2005. The study was based on Census figures.

Dan Gearino can be contacted at (515) 243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net

Married 53 years ago, Sidney and Cecile Lenier of West Palm Beach stood at a news conference Thursday holding a weathered copy of a circa-1883 "pastor's handbook" containing their wedding vows, and spoke of the virtues of marriages like theirs that involve a man and woman.

"It takes a mom and a dad and all the children and grandchildren in the family to be successful," said Cecile, 71.

Added Sidney, 74: "So many of our social problems are because of those who don't have both a father and mother."

The Leniers and 15 or so other backers of a Florida ballot amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman kicked off their campaign today in West Palm Beach, joining organizers in nine other cities, mostly at Baptist churches.

Amendment 2, which will be on the November ballot, would embed Florida's ban against gay marriage into the state constitution. Its support lies mainly with social conservatives. A group pushing for its passage recently changed its name to Yes2Marriage and is hoping to put Florida on a list with 27 other states that have constitutional bans on gay marriage.

Virginia Brooks, local co-chair of the group, said marriage defined as a union between a man and woman "has been the norm and the rule throughout history" but is "under attack in the modern world."

"If marriage is not for just man and woman, it could be anything," said Brooks, a retired Palm Beach Community College professor and leader in a local chapter of the Christian Coalition. "We could end up not only with same sex marriage but it would open the door to things like polygamy and group-sex marriage, none of which according to the literature has ever been shown to be any benefit to children and society as a whole."

Groups campaigning against the amendment include Florida Red & Blue and Fairness for All Families. Those organizations have cautioned that the amendment threatens to unravel health and retirement benefits for unmarried couples, straight and gay, by blocking civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Stephen Gaskill, a spokesman for Red & Blue, issued a statement in response to the news conferences. He said, "Behind all the negative political rhetoric, there are two undisputed facts about Amendment 2. First, Amendment 2 won't ban 'gay marriage' since same-sex unions are already prohibited by not less than four separate Florida laws. Second, Amendment 2 could dramatically interfere with existing benefits and legal protections for all Floridians."

But Luke Thornton of Lake Worth, an Amendment 2 supporter at the West Palm Beach rally, insisted that that amendment would have no infringement on anyone's benefits. Thornton said critics of the amendment are relying on a strategy used successfully in Arizona in defeating a similar gay marriage ban amendment by generating opposition from heterosexual senior citizens.

"Those that oppose this amendment are waging a campaign that's not true. They're airing deceptive statements to scare senior citizens," Thornton said. "Nothing could be further from the truth."

Mark Hollis can be reached at mhollis@sun-sentinel.com or 561-228-5512.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

MONTPELIER – The long-awaited report to the Vermont Legislature on the possibility of expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples will be released Monday.

Tom Little, the chairman of the Vermont Commission on Family Recognition and Protection, said members of the legislatively created group will meet at the Statehouse on Monday at 3 p.m. in Room 10 to unveil their findings.

A preliminary copy of the report – which will detail Vermonters' feelings on gay marriage eight years after the civil unions law – is not yet available, Little said Wednesday, because members are still putting their final touches to it.

"We've been discussing it over e-mail," he said.

Little said members of the group will discuss the highlights of the report at that meeting, the process of holding a series of public hearings across the state and "what lies ahead."

"Of course, what lies ahead is really out of our hands," Little said, referring to possible legislative action that may follow the report.

Democratic leaders of the Vermont House and Senate formed the committee – comprised of 11 Vermonters, including Little, a former Republican state legislator who oversaw the writing of the 2000 civil unions law – last summer to determine if it is time for the state to take the next step in expanding the rights of gays and lesbians.

The commission held a series of public hearings across the state during the fall and winter, and overwhelmingly heard support for changing state law to allow same-sex couples to marry.

According to its charter, the commission will deliver copies of its report to the Judiciary Committees in both the House and Senate – committees that are expected to be shut down or nearing the end of their work this session by the time the report comes out next week.

"We are open to taking their questions if they want to meet," Little said.

Beth Robinson, the chair of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Taskforce and an attorney who successfully argued the court case that led to the civil unions legislation, said Wednesday that she has not yet seen a draft of the report.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

As acceptance, and availability, of same-sex unions grows, so does an industry devoted to servicing gay and lesbian families formalizing their relationship.

In an Apr. 11 Travel section story the New York Times reported that gay and lesbian coupled getting hitched now have more choices than ever before when it comes to planners and other wedding vendors.

And those vendors are not waiting for the other 49 states to catch up to Massachusetts, currently the only state in the union to offer full-fledged marriage equality. Civil unions (available in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New Jersey) and domestic partnerships (provided for by the states of Washington, Hawaii, and Maine, along with the District of Columbia) are reason enough for couples to throw a party-and for vendors to solicit their business.

With same-gender unions proving to be a bonanza for business, companies that were skeptical a few years ago are suddenly taking note, according to Kathryn Hamm, a consultant for same-sex ceremonies based in Vir. The NY Times article quoted Hamm as saying, "When my mom started our business in 1999, she would go to stationery shows and people would just look at her like she was crazy."

No more: "A couple years later she went back and all of these vendors remembered her, and now they are begging her, ’What can we do to help?’"

As other states have observed that Mass. has neither been buried by a falling sky nor swallowed up by volcanoes, more limited forms of familial recognition in the form of civil unions and domestic partnerships have begun to take root. That has had an impact on business, too; said wedding planner Bernadette Smith, who owns a company called It’s About Time, "The number of out-of-state couples contacting me has diminished."

Added Smith, "The novelty of Massachusetts being the only place with gay marriage has worn off a bit."

Even couples living in states that do not recognize their families in any capacity are making their way to states that do-not to live there, but simply to join with one another, and with their extended families, and say their I Dos. That translates into beaucoup bucks for the travel and hotel industries.

The NY Times article cited an exposition from spring of 2007 which took place in New Jersey: vendors and couples converged at an event that showcased goods and services specific to same-sex ceremonies.

But showing off the goods is not the limit of the expanding industry. Once a couple has decided to move forward, accommodation and all the other necessities of a wedding need to be seen to; creative hoteliers have stepped in with package plans to address the overall needs of same-sex couples headed for the altar.

In Vermont, for example, Moose Meadow Lodge has seen about 185 same-sex ceremonies celebrated since that state became the first in the nation to allow civil unions. The lodge’s management offers three different package plans, with prices ranging from under $3,000 to over $4,000.

Savvy innkeepers in other states have kept an eye on local laws; when new Hampshire approved civil unions earlier this year, the owner of the Rosewood Country Inn lost no time in offering a package for couples looking to celebrate their nuptials, the paper reported. With two civil unions celebrations to its credit, and two more coming up, the Rosewood is finding the new venture to be a promising one.

Then there is the favorite town of many gays and lesbians, Provincetown, on the Massachusetts cape.

Said the owner of Provincetown’s White Wind Inn, Rob Tosner, "Summer is so busy that if couples want to marry then they have to plan well in advance."

Stephen Mascilo, the owner of the Oxford Guest House, another Provincetown inn, was cited by the article as saying that his inn is not just booked with wedding parties planning to come and celebrate; in fact, his inn is overbooked and he’s had to decline the business of some interested couples.

Different factors collide in the gay-wedding market to make it more profitable than the mixed-gender variety, the Times reported. First off, gay men travel more than their heterosexual counterparts to begin with; also, the fact that same-sex familial recognition is the law in so few states means that interested parties often have to travel if they wish their exchange of vows to carry any legal weight. According to the Times, a School of Law of the University of California, Los Angeles, study indicated that the annual influx of money from same-sex ceremonies could top $102 million... in New Jersey alone.

There’s also a halo effect that comes with a state’s laws evolving to accommodate gay and lesbian families. The Times referenced a study published in 2007 by Community Marketing that revealed that, for gay travelers, hospitality toward gays is an overriding factor in deciding where they will do business.

Observed Hamm, "Legalization of same-sex unions does have a financial impact," reported the Times.

Continued Hamm, "Legal validation helps couples feel more confident about ’coming out’ with their relationships and leads them to celebrate their commitments in larger fashion."

Said Moose Meadow Lodge owner Willie Docto, "More and more gay and lesbian couples inquiring about civil unions are from the South."

Added Docto, "Perhaps that’s the geographic target: red states with little chance of having same-sex marriage."

Kilian Melloy reviews media, conducts interviews, and writes commentary for EDGEBoston, where he also serves as Assistant Arts Editor.

Polling results from Gallup indicate that the public’s support for homosexuality continues to grow. But all may not be lost for pro-family groups. A number of caveats indicate there is still a window of opportunity before America completely surrenders its traditional views on human sexuality, marriage and family. After Gallup released its most recent survey on the issue in 2007, the polling firm said results found “current public tolerance for gay rights at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades.”

Soft support? For instance, it appears when real-life events occur that get Americans talking about homosexuality, public acceptance of that lifestyle softens. As one example of this phenomenon, after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws in the controversial Lawrence v. Texas decision in June 2003, support for homosexuality dropped dramatically. The percentage of people who said “homosexual relations between consenting adults” should be legal stood at 60% in May 2003, while only 35% said such relations should not be legal. In July 2003, one month after Lawrence v. Texas, it was 48%-46% in favor of homosexual relations being legal. By January 2004 it had flipped: 49% of respondents to the Gallup survey said homosexual relations should be illegal, with 46% in favor of such relations being legal. Gallup said the drop in support was connected to Lawrence v. Texas. “According to Gallup trends, that ruling appeared to produce a backlash of public opposition to gay rights,” the Gallup press release said last year. Tim Wildmon, president of AFA, said, “I think this indicates that people only think about gay civil rights in the most general terms. When current events force people to think about homosexuality in concrete terms, they begin to waver in their support for the gay agenda.”

All in how you ask it There is also a limitation to polling as a tool that plumbs the depths of feeling on any particular issue. Pollsters have long known, for instance, that asking leading questions or even the order in which questions are asked can subconsciously affect the answers given by respondents. On the issue of same-sex marriage, for example, Gallup found in 2007 that 53% of people thought that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. Forty-six percent were in favor of it. Those responses were the closest ever found by Gallup. To the company’s credit, however, Gallup issued this explanation in a press statement accompanying the release of poll results: “It should be noted that this gay marriage question follows a number of questions about homosexual rights [in Gallup’s survey]. … When the same question is asked in other Gallup surveys that do not include … [the other] questions, a lower level of support for gay marriage is usually found.” In a previous poll in 2005 – in which the same-sex marriage question was not preceded by other questions on homosexuality – support was, in fact, lower. Just 39% said they were in favor of gay marriage, and 56% opposed. This may indicate that there is a sense of public pressure at work, due to political correctness, when the subject of homosexuality surfaces. When people feel they are expected to answer in a certain way, they are more likely to yield to that expectation.

Nevertheless, there still appears to be a strong feeling in America that homosexuality is wrong, according to Gallup. Between 2001 and 2006, a slim majority of poll respondents (hovering between 51% and 55%) said they thought homosexual relations were “morally wrong.” Public views on this have tightened somewhat. Support for the moral acceptability of gay relations grew from 40% in 2001 to 47% in 2007, while the belief that it was morally wrong dropped from 53% to 49%. And 2007 was the first year that a majority of Americans failed to call such relations morally wrong, although a plurality (49% to 47%) still did so. How can it be that most Americans have believed homosexual relations to be morally wrong and yet, since 1999 (with the exception of the backlash to the Lawrence v. Texas decision) most have viewed homosexuality as publicly acceptable? It appears that most Americans are conflicted over the issue – or at least, as previously stated, they may simply not be thinking about the matter in any serious way. But this reality provides pro-family groups with an opportunity for influencing the “mushy middle” of American opinion that has not solidified either in full favor of or full opposition to gay rights. With public opinion trending in favor of the gay agenda, there is little time to lose.

Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa said March 29 that the government “will seek to grant certain guarantees to stable homosexual unions but without ever arriving at the point of marriage.”

“Let’s be clear that the profoundly humanistic position of this government is to respect the intrinsic dignity of everyone, of every human being, independently of their creed, race, sexual preference,” Correa said. “We will give certain guarantees to stable gay couples but matrimony will continue being reserved for a man, a woman and the family.”

Correa also said: “Every person has dignity, that’s to say, one must respect a person independently of their sexual preference. Be careful not to deny employment to someone because of their sexual preference. That is discrimination, that is unconstitutional.”

Costa Rica Declares National Day Against HomophobiaCosta Rican President Óscar Arias Sánchez and Health Minister María Luisa Ávila have issued an executive decree designating May 17 as National Day Against Homophobia. It states: “Public institutions must amply disseminate the objectives of this commemoration. They also must facilitate, promote and support activities directed at the eradication of homophobia.” May 17 is the day the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses, in 1990.

Activists Denounce Prosecution of Ukrainian Gay NewspaperThe heads of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission and the European branch of the International Lesbian and Gay Association wrote Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and other officials March 20 demanding that the public prosecutor in Kiev drop criminal charges against the newspaper published by the gay community center Nash Mir. The center is charged with distribution of pornography in violation of Article 301 of the Criminal Code.

“The government should ensure that notions such as public morality are not employed to restrict in a discriminatory manner, any exercise of freedom of opinion and expression that affirms diverse sexual orientations or gender identities,” said IGLHRC’s Paula Ettelbrick and ILGA’s Patricia Prendiville.

They said the case also violates the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which Ukraine is a signatory.

Men Arrested for Homosexual Conduct in IranThe arrest of more than 30 men attending a house party in Esfahán, Iran, signals renewed efforts by Iranian authorities to enforce morality codes, Human Rights Watch said March 28. Sources said the raid took place Feb. 28-29 and that the men have been jailed since without access to lawyers and without being charged with a crime. Police reportedly referred the men to a medical examiner to look for “evidence” they had engaged in gay sex.

Iranian law provides punishments up to death for penetrative sex between men. The last documented death sentences for consensual homosexual conduct were handed down in March 2005. It is not known whether they were carried out. Iran is known to have executed several teens and men accused of engaging in sodomy, but in the cases that have been publicized in recent years the individuals were accused of other crimes as well, such as rape.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission has said it suspects that other charges are tacked onto sodomy cases to prevent the public outrage that would accompany executions carried out solely for the crime of consensual adult gay sex. The group also has said it believes executions solely for gay sex are taking place out of the public eye. But Human Rights Watch has said it cannot fully document any executions in Iran in recent years carried out solely for the crime of consensual adult gay sex, and that there is no evidence that charges of consensual homosexual conduct are converted to charges of rape in the judicial system.

Copenhagen Oks Gay Foster ParentsIn a first for Denmark, the city of Copenhagen has approved two gay couples as acceptable foster parents, the Copenhagen Post reported March 31. The couples were placed on a list to offer homes to children removed from their own homes by government officials. “We can’t guarantee that the two couples will be used as often as other couples,” said Klaus Wilmann of the city’s Center for Foster Care. “But we feel that a family consisting of two men or two women can have the same beneficial qualities as any other.”

Famously liberal Denmark, which in 1989 became the first country to pass a same-sex registered-partnership law, has nonetheless remained squeamish on issues involving gays and children. A spokesman for the official Danish Council of Ethics denounced Copenhagen’s move as “supporting something abnormal.”

“Boys and girls benefit by being raised by a man and a woman,” Morten Kvist said.

Ireland Finalizing Partnership BillIreland’s government is putting the finishing touches on its civil-partnership bill, the Irish Times reported April 1. It will extend to registered same-sex couples the rights and obligations of marriage in areas such as property, social welfare, succession, alimony, pensions and taxes. Adoption rights will not be included. Terminating a civil partnership will work the same as divorce: The partners will have to have lived apart for four of the past five years before they can formally split.

The bill also changes how the law treats cohabiting couples who have not entered into a civil partnership or marriage. If they lived together for at least three years (two years, if they have children) and then split, the partners could be on the hook for financial relief if they were economically dependent — in areas such as alimony, property and sharing of pensions..

A recent Lansdowne Market Research poll found that 58 percent of the Irish believe gay couples should have access to civil marriage, and another 26 percent think they should be allowed civil partnerships but denied marriage.

Euro Court Extends Pension Rights To Gay CouplesThe European Court of Justice ruled April 1 that pension plans must pay out to surviving same-sex partners when the legal partnership is similar to marriage. The ruling came in the case of Tadao Maruko v. Versorgungswerk der deutschen Bühnen, the pension plan for German theaters. The plan had refused to pay Maruko his late partner’s pension, arguing that only married people were covered. The court said that was direct discrimination that is illegal when the partners “live in a union of mutual support and assistance which is formally constituted for life.”

The ruling is relevant to several of the 27 European Union nations that have marriagelike partnership laws for gay couples, including the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. Same-sex couples have access to full marriage in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he would fight an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot.

Schwarzenegger has vetoed bills that would allow gay marriage but said he opposes the sort of amendments that are being proposed by two competing groups. Such amendments are already on the books in 26 states, but the governor said it would be a "waste of time" to pursue one in California.

"I will always be there to fight against that," Schwarzenegger said, prompting loud cheers and a standing ovation from about 200 people at the annual convention of the Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

The Austrian-born governor immediately cracked that he wished activists would instead focus on passing an amendment to allow naturalized citizens to run for president.

Both proposed initiatives would limit marriage to heterosexuals, and one measure would revoke the spousal rights and tax benefits currently extended to same-sex couples under state laws.

Schwarzenegger supports the current benefits for same-sex couples. In vetoing bills that would have legalized gay marriage, he has said he thinks the question should be up to voters or the courts, not lawmakers.

Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California, said Schwarzenegger's opposition could help defeat a marriage ban or even prevent it from getting enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

"We were thrilled. We have been asking him to do this," said Kors, whose group's volunteers have been working to persuade people not to sign petitions for the proposed initiative. "The governor's support to defeat it is critical."

Kors said Schwarzenegger's stand has precedent. In 1978, former Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan came out against a ballot initiative that would have made it illegal for gay men and lesbians to work as teachers in California public schools, an act that "made gay rights issues nonpartisan," Kors said.

Proponents of the initiatives said Schwarzenegger is risking the ire of conservative voters.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, said the intention of his group's less far-reaching amendment was simply to keep the existing definition of marriage approved by the Legislature from being overturned by the courts.

Both groups have until April 28 to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election.

Schwarzenegger is a defendant in a group of lawsuits brought by same-sex couples seeking to overturn the state's longtime statutory ban on gay marriage. A ruling in the case is expected soon from the California Supreme Court.

Rights and protections for gays have been on a see-saw nationwide in recent years, with some advances having been made in areas like non-discrimination and civil unions, and many defeats in other areas, such as marriage equality. Now an anti-gay group in Maine seeks to wipe out several categories of gay protections and equities.

The Bangor Daily News published am Apr. 10 article on an attempt by the Christian Civic League of Maine to bring a referendum before voters that would bar gays from several family-equality arenas, including marriage equality, the right to adopt children, or even have civil unions.

The same referendum would also, in a single broad stroke, rescind anti-discrimination protections for GLBT people and de-fund the Attorney General’s civil rights staffing.

The executive director of the anti-gay group, Michael Heath, plans to deploy signature gatherers if and when Maine’s Secretary of State approves the Christian Civic League’s petition, the article said.

To get the referendum on the ballot, the group would need to gather a number equal to 10 percent of the number of voters in the last election for the state’s governor, just around 55,000.

The article quoted Heath as saying, "We’re mindful, politically speaking, of the fact that there are remaining questions with regard to gay rights."

Heath went on to say that, "the only real question remaining is whether same-sex marriage will eventually be allowed under the law."

Though the proposed measure would address far more than the issue of marriage equality, Heath said, "We’ve decided to put our own views out there on this and start the debate."

Heath was also behind an attempt three years ago to put an initiative on the ballot that would have reversed anti-discrimination legislation that protects GLBT citizens, the story said.

That attempt failed, though it did roil the state’s political waters. The executive director of the Maine Civil Liberties Union, Shenna Bellows, referenced that referendum’s defeat, saying, "Mainers have spoken loud and clear that Maine won’t discriminate."

Added Bellows, "We will vigorously oppose this referendum that is founded in hate and fear-mongering."................

By Lara SchwartzState and federal laws impose real dollar costs on real people. Call it “The Cost of Being Gay.” Many of the most significant examples of this cost occur in state and federal tax law. On tax day (April 15), Americans file both state and federal tax returns. For GLBT couples, tax day is a concrete reminder of the inequality that results from being denied marriage rights and from the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies federal recognition of same-sex relationships for over one thousand federal protections.

The Cost of Being Gay can have a serious impact. Take social security: on tax day, all American workers file tax returns that include, among other things, a statement of the total amount of social security payroll taxes they paid. GLBT Americans pay the same payroll taxes as everyone else, but are excluded from spousal benefits and survivors’ benefits. In fact, even children raised by same-sex couples are treated unfairly. A surviving child of a deceased GLBT worker can lose out on benefits worth tens of thousands of dollars over their childhood -- money that could pay for food, clothing, and education.

At the state level, homes and savings are subject to unfair taxation too. For example, when someone puts his or her same-sex partner on the title to a home, it often constitutes a transfer of 50% of the value of the home -- as if the two were strangers -- and is taxed accordingly. Different-sex married couples do not pay this tax. Inheritance taxes apply when a taxpayer dies and leaves assets to another person. Different-sex spouses receive a complete exemption from such inheritance taxes, but same-sex partners do not (except in states with marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, or special tax exemptions for partners). Because thresholds for state inheritance taxes are much lower than the federal threshold, inheriting the couple’s common home (or even the half of it that belonged to the deceased partner) can trigger inheritance tax.

Most workers look to their employers for health insurance, but this opportunity costs more for same-sex couples than other families. That’s because although employer-provided health benefits for different-sex couples are excluded from an employee’s gross income, domestic partner benefits are taxed. This can result in a tax hit of over $1700 annually.

Federal employment is an attractive option for many workers thanks to the diversity of opportunities and the competitive benefits programs. The federal government does not provide equal benefits for same-sex couples, however. A GLBT person who is a top employee is compensated unequally -- her family is denied health insurance, pension benefits, and even evacuation services for foreign-service officers’ families. This not only denies GLBT people access to good jobs -- it denies our government access to some of the top talent.

If that weren’t bad enough, how about having to choose between your job and caring for your family? The Family and Medical Leave Act provides up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave to care for a spouse or child, but same-sex couples are excluded.

The law is designed to create incentives to do socially valuable actions such as investing, buying a home, offering or making use of health insurance benefits, and providing support and security to one’s family. For same-sex couples, these incentives are turned on their head. It’s bad policy. And it’s behind the times. Over 50% of Fortune 500 companies offer domestic partner benefits. The law needs to catch up.

That’s why HRC is promoting the Family Matters legislative agenda: the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would provide equal benefits to same-sex partners of federal civilian employees; the Tax Equity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act, which would end the tax inequities that currently apply to employer-provided health insurance for domestic partners; the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, and legislation currently in development on other family protections. HRC also continues to work with the nation’s leading employers to expand employee benefits programs, family and medical leave, and equal retirement savings options. Over fifty major employers from every region of the country support eliminating the taxation of these benefits, and their numbers are growing.

Tax season is a great time to get your financial house in order, and minimize the cost of being gay. Information is available on the HRC website on what families can do to secure the maximum protections while the law catches up -- including medical and financial directives, information about partnership agreements, and more.

This tax day, consider the unreasonable cost that our tax code and other laws impose upon GLBT people and their children. As long as same-sex couples are given unequal compensation and unequal protections for equal work and equal commitment, we cannot truly call ourselves a land of opportunity.

What if you were injured unexpectedly and your loved one wasn't allowed to make essential decisions on your behalf? What if that person wasn't even allowed to see you? Can you dying and having your lifelong partner left with nothing?

These scenarios happen all too often to gay and lesbian couples. Because the laws of most states do not recognize same-sex partners as families, it is particularly important for gay and lesbian couples to carefully consider their estate-planning strategy.

A properly drafted estate plan is essential for managing your assets and ensuring your needs will be met now and in the future.

When you work with a professional financial planner or attorney, consider the following planning areas:

v Last will and testament. When an individual dies, his or her survivors typically submit that person's will to probate court.

Probate involves a judge's review of the will and the efforts of the executor (appointed by the decedent) to distribute property in accordance with the terms of the will. If the decedent does not have a will, the court will appoint a person to receive all claims against the estate, pay creditors, and then distribute the rest of the property in accordance with the intestate laws of the state. And there's a good chance that the court-appointed person may not recognize the partner's status. Intestate laws are not likely to do so, either.

v Living (or revocable living) trust. A revocable living trust allows you to transfer ownership of your assets to a trust, yet retain complete control over the funds. When you die, the appointed trustee distributes the assets in accordance with the terms of the trust. In most states, you can name your partner as both trustee and beneficiary.

Living trusts are appealing to same-sex couples because the assets are held outside a will, thus typically avoiding probate.

Additionally, living trusts are generally not public -- making them more difficult to contest.

v Durable power of attorney (DPA). A DPA can be used to grant your partner the authority to handle your affairs and make financial decisions, and you decide if it becomes effective immediately or only upon disability. If you do not have a DPA, your partner will have to petition the court to be appointed as your agent.

v Advance directive. A health-care proxy used in conjunction with a living will is referred to as an advance directive. The health-care proxy grants your partner the authority to make medical decisions if you become incapacitated. A living will outlines life-prolonging measures you want taken if you become terminally ill.

v Retirement benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples access to federal benefits and protections, including Social Security spousal and survivor benefits. At the state level, same-sex partners may be taxed at a higher rate than legally married partners, meaning that the sale or transfer of a home can hit gay and lesbian families harder.

However, the Pension Protection Act has helped with retirement benefits. Non-spouse beneficiaries are able to roll over assets inherited from a qualified retirement plan into an IRA, avoiding taxes until the assets are withdrawn.

v Funeral arrangements. Make sure you communicate your funeral wishes and designate someone to carry out your requests. This can protect those who are grieving from being shut out of the process.

San Francisco, CA, April 06, 2008 --(PR.com)-- Democratic presidential contender Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said in an interview today that the lack of federal protections for LGBT couples, particularly where immigration rights are concerned, are “one of the biggest problems that we’ve got to contend with.”

In a ground-breaking interview with Philadelphia Gay News reporters Mark Segal and Sarah Blazucki, Senator Clinton was asked point blank what she would do to improve the immigration policy for same-sex couples in which one partner is American and the other is from another country. Heterosexuals in this situation typically take advantage of federal marriage laws. By legally marrying, the American can then sponsor the foreign partner for a green card. Because immigration rights are part of federal marriage provisions, gays and lesbians, barred from federal marriage are also barred from equal immigration rights.

“Even states that have civil unions, domestic partnerships or even marriage laws are running into roadblocks with the federal government when it comes to federal benefits and privileges,” Senator Clinton said.

“Of course, immigration is a federal responsibility and I am going to do everything I can to eliminate any disparities in any benefits or rights under our law at the federal level so that all people will have available to them every right as an American citizen that they should, and that would include immigration law.”

Clinton’s comments go a step further than that of her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination. On February 29, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said he had “worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system.” The UAFA would amend existing immigration law by adding the words “or permanent partner” everywhere the word “spouse” appears, thus circumventing comprehensive immigration reform or changes to federal marriage recognition laws.

“Out4Immigration is encouraged by Senator Clinton’s comments,” said Michael Lim, Vice President of the national grassroots organization Out4Immigration, a group dedicated to raising awareness about the discrimination LGBT Americans and their foreign partners face under current US immigration law.

“We hope that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama mean what they say about changing laws that discriminate against and hurt our families,” Lim said. He cites a 2006 Human Rights Watch report that estimates there are 36,000 same-sex binational couples currently living in the United States. Every year, thousands of these couples are forced to either leave the United States or live apart because they have no legal options of remaining together in the United States.

The UAFA, introduced in May 2007 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), currently has 90 co-sponsors in the House and 12 in the Senate.

“Ironically, neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama is a co-sponsor of this bill,” said Lim. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), the presumptive Republican nominee has not signed on either.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

What if you were injured unexpectedly and your loved one wasn't allowed to make essential decisions on your behalf? What if that person wasn't even allowed to see you? Can you dying and having your lifelong partner left with nothing?

These scenarios happen all too often to gay and lesbian couples. Because the laws of most states do not recognize same-sex partners as families, it is particularly important for gay and lesbian couples to carefully consider their estate-planning strategy.

A properly drafted estate plan is essential for managing your assets and ensuring your needs will be met now and in the future.

When you work with a professional financial planner or attorney, consider the following planning areas:

v Last will and testament. When an individual dies, his or her survivors typically submit that person's will to probate court.

Probate involves a judge's review of the will and the efforts of the executor (appointed by the decedent) to distribute property in accordance with the terms of the will. If the decedent does not have a will, the court will appoint a person to receive all claims against the estate, pay creditors, and then distribute the rest of the property in accordance with the intestate laws of the state. And there's a good chance that the court-appointed person may not recognize the partner's status. Intestate laws are not likely to do so, either.

v Living (or revocable living) trust. A revocable living trust allows you to transfer ownership of your assets to a trust, yet retain complete control over the funds. When you die, the appointed trustee distributes the assets in accordance with the terms of the trust. In most states, you can name your partner as both trustee and beneficiary.

Living trusts are appealing to same-sex couples because the assets are held outside a will, thus typically avoiding probate.

Additionally, living trusts are generally not public -- making them more difficult to contest.

v Durable power of attorney (DPA). A DPA can be used to grant your partner the authority to handle your affairs and make financial decisions, and you decide if it becomes effective immediately or only upon disability. If you do not have a DPA, your partner will have to petition the court to be appointed as your agent.

v Advance directive. A health-care proxy used in conjunction with a living will is referred to as an advance directive. The health-care proxy grants your partner the authority to make medical decisions if you become incapacitated. A living will outlines life-prolonging measures you want taken if you become terminally ill.

v Retirement benefits. The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples access to federal benefits and protections, including Social Security spousal and survivor benefits. At the state level, same-sex partners may be taxed at a higher rate than legally married partners, meaning that the sale or transfer of a home can hit gay and lesbian families harder.

However, the Pension Protection Act has helped with retirement benefits. Non-spouse beneficiaries are able to roll over assets inherited from a qualified retirement plan into an IRA, avoiding taxes until the assets are withdrawn.

v Funeral arrangements. Make sure you communicate your funeral wishes and designate someone to carry out your requests. This can protect those who are grieving from being shut out of the process.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

AUGUSTA – Marriage would be limited to heterosexual couples and civil unions would be prohibited under a referendum being pursued by the Christian Civic League of Maine.

Under the proposed legislation, same-sex couples would not be allowed to adopt, sexual orientation would be removed from the Maine Human Rights Act and funding for the civil rights teams in the Attorney General’s Office would be eliminated.

Michael Heath, the organization’s executive director, initiated the process last week. The effort will need to gather 55,087 signatures – a figure equal to 10 percent of votes cast in the last gubernatorial election – within 18 months of the issuance of an approved petition by the Secretary of State.

In 2005, voters supported a state law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 1998 and 1990, voters had opposed gay-rights laws.

With your help, the ballot initiative that would change the state constitution to prohibit marriage for same-sex couples for generations may not qualify for the November election. We need every person reading this to volunteer for just one day during the next two weeks.

Clearly, we are having an impact. Here's what our opponents are saying about us:

"We are facing a major obstacle that could derail our effort to protect marriage... Our opponents have launched a counterattack to disrupt the petition drive and keep the Marriage Amendment from qualifying for the ballot... This is slowing down our daily signature totals."

- ProtectMarriage.com email, April 7.

But as we all know, they will stop at nothing to get the ballot initiative qualified. They are even paying people for every signature they collect. And groups like Focus on the Family continue to pour more money and resources into their effort.

We need more people on the ground in key areas, which is why your help is critical right now. Here’s what you can do to help us reach more people:

Volunteer. It will take all of us to counter the opposition’s efforts. We especially need help in Burbank, Fresno, Orange County, Pasadena, Palmdale, Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino and San Diego. If you don’t live in one of these areas, why not make a weekend trip?

Tell your family, friends and co-workers about what’s happening. Ask them to help.

Make a donation. Every dollar raised will help defeat anti-gay ballot measures in California.

This is a true test for our community. Can we fend off the ballot measure now or will we have to fight for months to come? We need your help. Please sign up to volunteer now.

FeedBurner FeedCount

Labels

About Me

As a same sex marriage activist for almost a decade in NY. I hope this site will open the dialogue about the topic and keep people informed.This is a personal profile and blog. Articles I post here do not necessarily represent my own views, and views I do express are stated in a personal capacity and do not represent the position of any organization with which I might be affiliated.